Am Mittwoch, 21. Januar 2015, 22:34:32 schrieb Stephen Rothwell: > Hi Peter, > > On Thu, 22 Jan 2015 08:23:50 +1100 Stephen Rothwell <sfr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > To save on the ifdef, why not > > > > struct acpi_device *acpi; > > > > . > > . > > > > acpi = pnp_acpi_device(dev); > > if (acpi) > > > > acpi_dev_handle = acpi->handle; > > I guess struct acpi_device may not be visible when CONFIG_ACPI is not > set? That would be a pain :-( Yeah seems like it :( I also thought about this way but then decided against it for the obvious reason. Stephen, do you pull this patch in directly or shall it go via my tpmdd-tree - > james -> -next ? > As an aside, the dummy pnp_acpi_device() should be returning NULL not > 0, and could be a static inline function (as could several other things > in that header. Yeah, probably. (although this function is only in exactly two places within the kernel... so not much is gained here:) Maybe I'll post a patch or maybe we can get rid of this whole thing altogether. Let me think about it. Peter -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-next" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
